Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[DaveTN]

Definitely think they ought to go back to the M 1911. Armies need good weapons, but the weapons must also be produceable in volume and sustainable over time. The weapon itself is merely the tip of the spear, the "logistics tail" is doubly important. There is a lot of native infrastructure for the M 1911, and years and years of working the bugs and kinks out of the weapon. It is also highly produceable, produceable by probably hundreds of companies. The weapon is also sustainable, there are thousands of companies that can produce accessories and parts, especially spare parts as required. There are also tens of thousands of people who can repair and maintain the weapons as well. Additionally, the initial patents are expired, which keeps the costs down.

I don’t have anything against a 1911, have owned many, and currently have two. But I don’t think the 1911 is in the running. There are a few reliable .45ACP pistols without going back to the 1911.

[dcloudy777]

I'm a big 1911 fan, but there are a ton of better options for a general-issue service pistol, including the current M9.

[mikegideon]

Definitely think they ought to go back to the M 1911. Armies need good weapons, but the weapons must also be produceable in volume and sustainable over time. The weapon itself is merely the tip of the spear, the "logistics tail" is doubly important. There is a lot of native infrastructure for the M 1911, and years and years of working the bugs and kinks out of the weapon. It is also highly produceable, produceable by probably hundreds of companies. The weapon is also sustainable, there are thousands of companies that can produce accessories and parts, especially spare parts as required. There are also tens of thousands of people who can repair and maintain the weapons as well. Additionally, the initial patents are expired, which keeps the costs down. 

 

I love the 1911. With that said, it's heavier, more complicated, and more prone to malfunctions than a number of the newer service pistols. I love 45ACP. But, it's heavier (2x the weight of 9mm), and isn't always superior. Depends on where it hits.

 

This is one case where the military is not the expert in making the choice. IMO, they need to look to services that USE and DEPEND ON their handguns every day. Of course they need to be assured that the chosen weapon will stand up in combat conditions. If they do that properly, the 1911 will most likely fail in the reliability department. More than one civilian trainer has stated that the 1911 couldn't make it thru a pistol training course without malfunctions.

 

A patent is only valid for 17 years. That's a short time for a gun design. I'm guessing the patents have expired on most by now.

[DMark]

This is one case where the military is not the expert in making the choice. IMO, they need to look to services that USE and DEPEND ON their handguns every day. Of course they need to be assured that the chosen weapon will stand up in combat conditions. If they do that properly, the 1911 will most likely fail in the reliability department. More than one civilian trainer has stated that the 1911 couldn't make it thru a pistol training course without malfunctions.

 

Earlier we had the input of several LEO departments (FBI, DEA, BP, LAPD, NYPD, etc., etc.).  They had the most current and up to date shooting data and training methods by type of firearm.  We also had several in person briefings by agency personnel.  They where very insightful.  I would disagree that the military is not an expert in the area.  We just have different needs and requirements that LEOs do not (like jumping out of airplanes with sidearms and training 100s of thousands to use pistols).  Therefore our expertise is shaped by war-fighting needs and the consequence of selecting items for a large force of people, the 5th to 95th percentile of adults to include females.

 

Also, I'm sure there are a lot of 1911s that fail in civilian training courses and for many reason.  Until you have the mean time between failures (MTBF) presented before you that factually present the data - - - the comments of more than one civilian trainer carries little weight with armed professionals. 

 

That said, the 1911 was not among the choices we selected for final consideration. 

[mikegideon]

  I would disagree that the military is not an expert in the area.  We just have different needs and requirements that LEOs do not (like jumping out of airplanes with sidearms and training 100s of thousands to use pistols). 

 

Should have said within their own ranks. I had no idea that they looked to law enforcement. That's a good thing. Of course their requirements are more rigorous. but, it's helpful to look at the group that uses handguns as their primary weapons.

 

So... is jumping out of a plane infrequently harder on a pistol than daily handling with fingers dipped in donut grease? I think not  :rofl:

[btq96r]

 I have to believe "big" Army is training folks who are issued sidearms better than I was trained even though I was issued a "handgun"  from '82 through '98 although having enlisted in '73. If not, then discussions of caliber, action, etc., means very little.  A spear or a sling would likely be as effective.  The only guys I knew who had enough sidearm training ammo to make a difference fell under the "special" moniker.  Only after changing MOSs at FT Bragg did I ever have any sidearm training by someone who knew what they were doing.  You were better off training with a privately owned weapon with your own ammo.  So, other than Spec Ops I suspects graybeards in charge of the Army probably don't know or care about sidearm issues as long as they have a pretty one the armorer dotes on.  What I do remember about the 1911s that were issued during my time is that they were in operational condition but that is all.  They all sounded like castanets when handled, rattled in the holsters even.  They had to be heavily oiled or would turn orange in the holster.  It got so bad with my last one that I carried it in an oily rag tucked into the holster.  

 

Nailed it, graycrait.

 

I got out in '09 and there wasn't anything I'd call "training" with the M9.  The ranges were either a paper target at 25 meters or pop-up targets from about 5 to 30 meters.  We called the pop-up range an "officers qualification" since you were issued more rounds than targets.  For more detail about it, you can read the Army FM about it- http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_23x35c3.pdf. Everything I knew about pistol shooting, one of our NCO's taught me at a private range with our own pistols.

 

And yeah, no matter what pistol the Army has, it will get worn down fast.  That PFC or Specialist who sits in the arms room all day will be dicking around with them out of boredom, it will be issued to people who won't care for it properly and only see it as a way to get out of carrying an M4 on the FOB, and all other kinds of neglect since nobody has to buy them out of pocket.

Edited July 13, 2014 by btq96r

[DMark]

So... is jumping out of a plane infrequently harder on a pistol....

 

Only if some knucklehead forgets to attach their lanyard, it "departs" out of the holster from the opening shock of the chute...., and then your entire unit gets to spend days on lockdown searching for it across the DZ.   :rant:   

[mikegideon]

Only if some knucklehead forgets to attach their lanyard, it "departs" out of the holster from the opening shock of the chute...., and then your entire unit gets to spend days on lockdown searching for it across the DZ.   :rant:   

 

Well, a 1911 is gonna be about 2' in the ground. A Glock might bounce :)

[graycrait]

This is a pretty entertaining thread!

[Patton]

Nailed it, graycrait.
 
I got out in '09 and there wasn't anything I'd call "training" with the M9.  The ranges were either a paper target at 25 meters or pop-up targets from about 5 to 30 meters.  We called the pop-up range an "officers qualification" since you were issued more rounds than targets.  For more detail about it, you can read the Army FM about it- http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_23x35c3.pdf. Everything I knew about pistol shooting, one of our NCO's taught me at a private range with our own pistols.
 
And yeah, no matter what pistol the Army has, it will get worn down fast.  That PFC or Specialist who sits in the arms room all day will be dicking around with them out of boredom, it will be issued to people who won't care for it properly and only see it as a way to get out of carrying an M4 on the FOB, and all other kinds of neglect since nobody has to buy them out of pocket.

Things actually are better now, or at least they were for me as a MP. However it wasn't until about 2005 that I started seeing the moving targets, malfunction drills with training rounds mixed in, and stress courses with less than desireable conditions. I have heard and even experienced some of the old Army training though.

[DMark]

Things actually are better now, or at least they were for me as a MP. However it wasn't until about 2005 that I started seeing the moving targets, malfunction drills with training rounds mixed in, and stress courses with less than desireable conditions. I have heard and even experienced some of the old Army training though.

 

The training area was one of the successes coming out of that earlier program.  It was hard, Hard, HARD, to get the Army out of its square range mind-set.  I remember the shock and horror coming out of the safety center when scenario based training was discussed.  They just couldn't get their little Safety-Nazi brain around the idea of people drawing from a holster, never mind that tens of thousands of civilians did it every weekend in competition shooting.   

 

Yet, like everything in the Army even this is driven by funding.  If your unit doesn't apply the additional training dollars by sending folks to "Train-The-Trainer" at Benning or paying the AMU to come to you to build a cadre, it won't happen.  Also the additional ammo for this must also be funded by the unit, its over and above what the Standards in Training Commission (STRAC) training ammunition guidelines allows for pistol training. 

[btq96r]

It was hard, Hard, HARD, to get the Army out of its square range mind-set.  I remember the shock and horror coming out of the safety center when scenario based training was discussed.  They just couldn't get their little Safety-Nazi brain around the idea of people drawing from a holster, never mind that tens of thousands of civilians did it every weekend in competition shooting.   

 

DMark, were you familiar with the CAT-C training program?  I went through it in 2007 at Fort Campbell, and it was without a doubt the best long gun training I've ever had.  We spent about a half day on pistol as well, and even that small amount of time was of immense value given the caliber of instruction and cadre.

[dcloudy777]

It sucks, but I can understand why handgun training is a low-priority item for the DoD.  The average PFC Snuffy probably has as much chance of killing a bad guy with his E-tool as a pistol. 

 

That being said, were I going into harms way, and was allowed to carry one, I'd darn sure make sure I learned how to use it a little, on my own dime if I had to. 

[DMark]

DMark, were you familiar with the CAT-C training program?  I went through it in 2007 at Fort Campbell, and it was without a doubt the best long gun training I've ever had.  We spent about a half day on pistol as well, and even that small amount of time was of immense value given the caliber of instruction and cadre.

 

Are you talking about the Close Quarters Marksmanship Course (CQM) that the AMU developed?  By 2007 it might have matured with a big enough cadre base across the Army for the Combined Arms Center Training (CAC-T) to be the lead.     

[btq96r]

Are you talking about the Close Quarters Marksmanship Course (CQM) that the AMU developed?  By 2007 it might have matured with a big enough cadre base across the Army for the Combined Arms Center Training (CAC-T) to be the lead.     

 

No, not the the CQM course (though I wish I could have done that one).  Asymmetric Warfare Group was the lead for the CAT-C course.  We didn't shoot M4's closer than 25m, and that was just to get on paper for the zero- we zeroed at 100 and then 200 meters, and to practice the standing position for shooting.

 

I mentioned it because of your comment about the Army needing to get out of it's square range mindset.  We were shooting slick, then we mixed in moving, then doing it with kit, doing barrier shooting, off side shooting, I even learned the roll-over prone position.  I wish we had more time with the M9, but the entire course was only a week long. 

 

The course was awesome.

[DMark]

I didn't know the AWG was doing that stateside.     

 

By 2007 I had departed TRADOC and the Army had put me out to pasture with First Army before I retired.

[graycrait]

http://bearingarms.com/army-wants-new-handgun-way-can-now/

[Guest tangojuliet]

as a tf160 instructor told me its the bullets and the training not the m9 that's the issue as of the moment 

Edited July 16, 2014 by tangojuliet

[JohnC]

They should be looking at the FNH FNX 45 Tactical

 

http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/handguns/fnx-series/fnx-45-tactical/